What to do about North Korea and its comical-if-he-didn't-have-nukes ruler, Kim Jong Il?

With his latest nuclear weapons test Monday and rocket launches Tuesday, Kim has again played the provocateur, daring the rest of the world to restrain him, perhaps in order to wrangle more concessions and aid from the West. The rest of the world obliged accordingly, with condemnations coming in from Moscow, Washington and most points in between.

North Korea has demonstrated repeatedly that it can't abide by the rules agreed to by other nations, especially the rest of the Group of Six that has met with it in an effort to curb its nuclear ambitions. President Barack Obama has called for "action" against North Korea, but it's not clear what the United States nor other likeminded nations can realistically do. Nobody wants to launch a military attack on North Korea, partly because it would surely draw in China and Russia while destabilizing the Pacific Rim. It also would take a heavy toll on the impoverished civilian population of North Korea, which also is victimized by Kim's rogueish behavior.

North Korea already has been about as isolated as it can be from the community of nations, which has offered it numerous opportunities to cooperate with international concerns about nuclear proliferation. The next step may be to impose an economic and perhaps, a physical blockade intended to block other nations from trading nuclear-related items. Yet this would represent a dangerous escalation with Kim's regime.

It's possible that Monday's nuclear test represents some internal political pressures, as candidates jockey to succeed the aging and ailing Kim. And indeed, it would be helpful if Kim found his way peacefully to the afterlife, in hopes that a more predictable ruler would follow him.

It's a thorny situation for Obama, whose options for dealing with North Korea are really rather limited. His best bets are to cajole Korea's neighbors, including China, into ratcheting up the economic and military pressure against Kim, short of going to war.

There are good outcomes that may be attained, but the paths to reach them are shrouded in uncertainty. It's important to stand close to South Korea, which acts as a bulwark against Kim. It is also good policy not to antagonize China by acting unilaterally against North Korea. But, as the president has said before, "words must mean something." So the question is: What do they mean?